IFTA Ballot Proposals Comments

IFTA Ballot Comments

You can now browse through past ballot comments using the tools below.


2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #1 - 2020

Jurisdiction Position Comments

ALABAMA
Support

ARIZONA
Support

BRITISH COLUMBIA
Support

CALIFORNIA
Support

IDAHO
Support

ILLINOIS
Support

IOWA
Support

KANSAS
Support

KENTUCKY
Support

MAINE
Support

MANITOBA
Support

MARYLAND
Support

MASSACHUSETTS
Undecided Greetings,
I clearly understand the frustration of a ballot not getting the "44 Votes" needed for passage, as many good ballots over the years have been victimized by NO's cast for a jurisdcition not voting at all. I clearly understand the denominator not always being 58, I get that.

It is the language that has me concerned/confused. "Eligible Member Jurisdcitions"  and "With Voting Privileges" has me wondering...
Clarify for me please, when NJ was not voting for a couple of years, was the denominator not 57?? or was their non-voting a "No Vote"..?

If (5) Commish's fail to vote for a ballot and the denominator becomes 53 and the magic votes of yes's needed goes to 40, instead of 44. That's what we are after with this ballot......right?
We want the failure to vote ..., to not be counted as a "No Vote"....isnt that our end game goal?

MICHIGAN
Support

MISSOURI
Support

MONTANA
Support

NEBRASKA
Support

NEW HAMPSHIRE
Support

NORTH CAROLINA
Undecided North Carolina generally agrees with the intent of the what the ballot is trying to achieve but has concerns regarding the language used to get there. Our primary concerns are with the definition of "Eligible Member Jurisdiction." Where this definition affects the right to vote, the definition must be clear and concrete; deficiencies in this definition may affect the outcome of our vote. We discuss our concerns regarding this definition in the text  below. We have also provided recommended changes in the link below. The document addresses our concerns with the definition and provides additional tweaks and fixes that we believe would improve the ballot generally.
 
We identify four concerns with the definition of eligible member jurisdiction.
 
First, the definition provides that an eligible member jurisdiction is one "with active membership status not being found out of compliance . . . " As used here, "being found out of compliance" does not account for a jurisdiction that was previously found out of compliance but subsequently comes into compliance. In other words, “being found out of compliance” can be subsequently cured and voting rights restored if previously revoked. Further, a jurisdiction can be found out of compliance but not have its voting rights revoked (e.g. the PCRC finds non-compliance but fails the 2/3 vote to initiate the dispute).
 
Second, the jurisdiction's voting rights are conditioned on a commissioner or delegate be recognized by IFTA, Inc. Where applying this provision could effectively treat a jurisdiction as if it does not exist, the procedure for naming a Commissioner should be provided in the Agreement if referring to a formal recognition by IFTA, Inc. The procedure appears to be  provided under the "Intent" section of the ballot. This language should be incorporated into the Agreement itself. If this language is incorporated, additional considerations will have to be made to ensure consistency between formal recognition by IFTA Inc. and Sections R218 (defining Commissioner), R1555.300 (delegate's ability to vote), R1650.100 (delegate's ability to vote). Requiring formal recognition by IFTA Inc. may impact these Sections.
 
Third, the use of “with voting privileges” tagged at the end of the sentence in R220 should be clarified. We understand the intent of the phrase is to ensure that the delegate has been granted voting privileges from the Commissioner, who then has notified IFTA, Inc. of this delegated power. Where the referent "delegate" is in a parenthetical, the purpose of this phrase becomes less clear.
 
Finally, the definition has three criteria that must be met before a jurisdiction becomes an eligible member jurisdiction. These concepts should be separated to improve clarity.
 
Please see the following link regarding other comments:

https://www.iftach.org/forums/upload/temp/NC%20response-%20FTPBP%201-2020%20for%202nd%20Comment%20Period.docx
 

NOVA SCOTIA
Support

OKLAHOMA
Support

ONTARIO
Support ON continues to support this ballot.

PENNSYLVANIA
Support

SASKATCHEWAN
Support

SOUTH CAROLINA
Support

TENNESSEE
Support

VIRGINIA
Support

WASHINGTON
Support

WEST VIRGINIA
Support

WYOMING
Support
Support: 28
Oppose: 0
Undecided: 2